Best Rich Picture Book

Designing touch permeate vote divulge identifys a rich vista exercise. Name Course Instructor Pavel Gokin HF 770 Prototyping Chauncey Wilson Collecting the selective breeding. My primary unwrapded player of data was the Internet in general and the ACM digital library in particular. The papers and articles fix thither provided entropy ab kayoed the cast and work of voting dodges, as wellhead as the entities influencing or influenced, directly or indirectly, by the placement. Some of the stakeholder concerns came from my personal encounter and educated guessing.This is, of course, not how I would bundle up the data for this rich picture if I were doing it as a real project. Ide bothy, the insights would do it from contextual interviews of the stakeholders as outlined in Monk and Howards article (Monk &038 Howard, 1998, p. 22). thence the concerns addressed by the name would be real user concerns (albeit reported preferably than observed) rather than what I, the gr aphic designer, think the concerns were. Touch cover song voting musical arrangements (VS) shargon most of the same stakeholders with alone types of voting machines.The exceptions here argon the stakeholders that come into play due to the electronic nature of the data collection. For example, the Secretary of invoke office, where voting carcass sellers overhear to escrow the source autograph of their systems (Dill et al. , nd, 2. 3). How ever, some design issues and stakeholder concerns argon unique to touch screen VS. allows look at the stakeholders and their concerns, evince in their confess words. pristine / marrow stakeholders. 1. The voter. This wizard is obvious. However, it may be recycl satis conc throw awayantory to break this stakeholder into sub-stakeholders. Heres why. suffr senesce systems must be us fitting by all citizens 18 years of age or older.This includes not but principle voters, but also the elderly, disabled, uneducated, ugly, and minoriti es (Bederson, 2003, p. 145). Each group has additional concerns on top of the ones it sh atomic number 18s with all of the voters. a. Concerns common to all voters, in their own words, include i. allow for I be able to plan this thing out quickly? ii. entrust my vote be properly recorded and counted? How will I know? iii. entrust my vote be kept anonymous? b. Disabled i. Will I be able to see the screen? Will I be able to use the system without visual perception anything? (low/no vision) ii. Will I be able to reach the controls? (stature, wheelchair) iii. Will I be able to indicate my pickax properly? (motor) c. Elderly. In addition to having somatogenic disabilities, the elderly are particularly misanthropic of technology. They often need written create of important transactions (i. e. paper genial security checks). i. Will I transmit a paper receipt or some written confirmation of my vote? ii. Will I bedevil tolerable epoch to do everything comfortably? d. u nhopeful literacy users i. Will I be able to understand the instructions/choices? e. The execrable and racial/ethnic minorities i. I cease do this much better in Spanish ii. Will they even count my suffrage? 1 2. Poll workers.Poll workers are the commonwealth who deploy and manage the systems. Their concern stems from the fact that they pick out minimal training on the system and, on that pointfore, may not be able to troubleshoot problems or answer questions (Bederson, 2003, p. 145) because poor and ethnic and racial minorities were much apparent to cast their ballots on outdated systems, their votes were among the least likely to be counted (Bederson, 2003, p. 145). 1 a. Oh no option night is tomorrow and we only got these things this morning How will I ever learn how to use it, let alone(predicate) help someone if they develop a problem? 3. The VSs UI designer.This role may physically reside inside the system vendors organization (and influenced by it), but it also has its own concerns. a. How give the sack I design the interface so that it adverts the requirements least expensively and do so without working nights and weekends to meet the deadline? The problem here is three-fold (i) requirements may stress functionality required to whelm certification rather than assure a usable product (FECs fault) (ii) the atmospheric pressure to cut cost may pixilated that some of the users needs will be sacrificed (iii) personal time pressure mean that the designer may not stick out enough time to come up with the best solution. . The VSs coder. a. How can I program this thing so that it meets the requirements and what shortcuts can I take so that I get it all done plot only working nights and weekends to meet the deadline? The programmers problems are similar to those of the designer too little time to interest rough the user experience. Secondary stakeholders. 5. The fore feeling team of the VS vendor. Their concern is, among others a. We need to design a system that will hap qualification by the ITA. b. How can we design, conciliate and sell the system most profitably? c. Who has the deepest pockets to pay for our state of the art system? 6. articulate and local authorities who procure the system. According to Bederson et al. state or county purchasers are usually more concerned s light-coloredly cost than usability (Bederson, 2003, p. 145) a. Whos got the cheapest NASED-certified system? quality that this concern is in conflict with the VS vendors need to charge as much as possible for the systems. 7. The national Election Committee (FEC) creates voting system standards (VSS) a. We need a system thats secure, reliable, and accessible. 8.The Independent Testing Authority (accredited by the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED)) qualifies VS for use in elections (Coggins, 2004, p. 35) a. Does this system meet the qualification requirements? 9. Electees. To quote/paraphrase Al Gore a. We need a deal and accurate count 10. The Media. Would they ever venerate to dig up some outrage on a system that a disabled veteran could not use and was thus disenfranchised a. Are there systems out there that are not secure or accessible? 11. semipolitical Analysts. They too like to talk about chads. a. Will the new systems again jeopardise our Democracy? The Rich Picture. The diagram on the following page places (a) all the stakeholders, (b) their concerns, and (c) their relationships to one another. The relationships are defined by the information or material goods they exchange. The voter stakeholder is detonate into its subgroups. Direct stakeholders appear in the shaded area. Will I be able to figure the system out quickly so I can help the voters? Will I understand the instructions / choices? The voter Can I figure this out quickly? I can do this much better in SpanishInstructions / help Poll prole Requests for assistance Low Literacy voter voter Will I be able to use this thing at all? Poor and Racial/Ethnic minority Will I get a receipt? Sala ry Need the cheapest certified system we can get. Need to cut costs and charge more. Votin g Syste m s Disabled taker Elderly voter turnoutr er Us inp ut (? ) I dont founder time for UCD I want a substitute and accurate vote count State / Local voting authority (VS Purchaser) t un co te Vo l resu Vote ts System design Salary Paym ent VS reason System VS Vendor ec code I wish I had more time Salar s sp y Qu m aliVote results Sy ste fic o ati Electee VS Programmer n Is poor design ca apply disenfranchisement among the voters? Media We want lubricating oil on badly designed voting systems Political Media Analyst We need planetary standards for secure and accessble systems V S Qu alificat Repor ion t NASED VS n Sta da s rd ITA Vote res u lts Note Primary / core stakeholders appear in the light gray shaded area FEC Discussion. Obtaining concerns. Since I didnt interview the stakeholders, many of th e concerns are ground on my assumptions about the stakeholders. Therefore, those concerns may not be real.For the same reason I can only guess the look at language to use in the concerns thought bubbles. An interesting alternate strategy could have been to omit unverified concerns. In this drive the resulting rich picture would point to information gaps requiring more research. Which concerns to include. Even if all concerns are identified we must keep in mind that some affect the system about which were trying to marque a rich picture fleck others dont. In general, identifying concerns that have an wallop on the design of the touch screen voting system was difficult.This was especially true up for indirect stakeholders. In addition, choosing concerns that seem to have an impact on the system cosmos designed and ignoring the others may have caused me to omit an important concern that may have a significant impact on the system. Direct vs. indirect stakeholders. Where to draw the line? The way I dealt with this problem was to associate as direct stakeholders all entities that physically interact with the system or whose decisions have a direct impact on a particular voting system. A possible alternate approach.In their paper, Monk and Howard exemplify two approaches to indicating process passs between stakeholders in a rich picture illustrating the flow of data and the flow of influence. While I chose to illustrate the flow of data or information, the influence flow approach could have provided some interesting insights as well. I could have placed the system itself in the center of the diagram and represented the slipway in which the different stakeholders influenced the system using process arrows. These influences, combined with concerns, could then be used to create system requirements. Bibliography. Bederson, B. B. , Lee, B. Sherman, R. M. , Herrnson, P. , Niemi, R. G. (April, 2003). electronic Voting System Usability Issues. CHI 2003, April 51 0, 2003, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA. Dill, D. L. , Mercuri, R. , Neumann, P. G. , &038 Wallach, D. S. (nd). Frequently Asked Questions about DRE Voting Systems. Retrieved on February 14, 2006 from http//www. verifiedvoting. org/article. php? id=5018. Coggins, C. (November, 2004). Independent Testing of Voting Systems. communication theory of the ACM, October, 2004, 47(10), pp. 34-38. Monk, A. , &038 Howard, S. (March-April, 1998). The rich picture A joyride for reasoning about work context. Interactions, pp. 21-30.